Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 1:6 - 1:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_1:6. Ὅταν , with the conjunctive aorist, takes the place of the Latin futurum exactum. See Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 289. Ὅταν εἰσαγάγῃ cannot consequently mean, as was still assumed by Bleek I., and recently by Reuss:[35] “when He brings in,” but only: “when He shall have brought in.” To take πάλιν , however, with the Peshito, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Hammond, Bengel, Wolf, Carpzov, Cramer, Valckenaer, Schulz, Kuinoel, Bleek, Stengel, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Reuss, alii, as Heb_1:5, i.e. merely as the formula for linking on a new citation, is forbidden by the position of the words. It must then have been written: πάλιν δέ , ὅταν εἰσαγάγῃ … λέγει . The possibility of an inversion of the ΠΆΛΙΝ is defended, it is true, by Bleek, after the precedent of Carpzov, on the authority of two passages in Philo (Legg. Allegor. iii. p. 66; ed. Mangey, p. 93). But neither of these presents a case analogous to the one before us, nor does an inversion of the πάλιν at all take place in them. For in both ΠΆΛΙΝ has the signification in turn, or on the other hand, inasmuch as in the former two classes of persons ( ὁ δὲ νοῦν τὸν ἴδιον ἀπολείπων and Ὁ ΔἙ ΠΆΛΙΝ ἈΠΟΔΙΔΡΆΣΚΩΝ ΘΕΌΝ ), in the latter two classes of ΔΌΞΑΙ or opinions ( Ἡ ΜῈΝ ΤῸΝ ἘΠῚ ΜΈΡΟΥς , ΤῸΝ ΓΕΝΝΗΤῸΝ ΚΑῚ ΘΝΗΤῸΝ ἈΠΟΛΙΠΟῦΣΑ and Ἡ ΔῈ ΠΆΛΙΝ ΘΕῸΝ ἈΠΟΔΟΚΙΜΆΖΟΥΣΑ ), are compared together by way of contrast, in such wise that in both ΠΆΛΙΝ only serves for bringing the ΔΈ into stronger relief, and in both has occupied its legitimate place. By virtue of its position, ΠΆΛΙΝ , in our passage, can be construed only with ΕἸΣΑΓΆΓῌ , in such wise that a bringing again of the First-born into the world, which is an event still belonging to the future, is spoken of. In the former member of Heb_1:6 the reference can accordingly be neither to the time of the Incarnation of the Son (Chrysostom, Primasius, Calvin, Owen, Calov, Bengel, Storr, Kuinoel [Stuart: or beginning of His ministry], Bleek II. alii); nor to the time of the Resurrection and Exaltation to heaven (Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, Wittich, Braun, Wetstein, Rambach, Peirce, Whitby, and others); nor, as Bleek I. supposed, to a moment yet preceding the Incarnation of Christ, in which the Father had, by a solemn act as it were, conducted forth and presented the Son to the beings created by Him, as the First-born, as their Creator and Ruler, who was to uphold and guide all things,[36]—which in any case would be an entirely singular thought in the N. T.,—but simply and alone to the coming again of Christ to judgment, and the accomplishment of the Messianic kingdom. So, rightly, Gregory Nyssen, contra Eunom. Orat. iii. p. 541; Cornelius a Lapide, Cameron [Mede: for the inauguration of His millennial kingdom], Gerhard, Calmet, Camerarius, Estius, Gomar, Böhme, de Wette, Tholuck, Bisping, Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 172, 2d ed.), Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 306, 617), Alford, Conybeare, Maier, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, M‘Caul, Woerner. The objection brought by Bleek and Ebrard against this interpretation of the former member, required as it is by the exigencies of the grammar, viz. that the discourse could not turn on the bringing again of the First-born into the world, unless an earlier bringing in of the same into the world, or at least a former being of the Son ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ had been explicitly spoken of, is invalidated by Heb_1:1; Heb_1:3, where certainly the discourse was already of the historic appearing of the Son on earth, and thus of a first bringing in of the same into the world. The additional objection of Bleek, however, that the author would hardly have limited the scope of a divine summons to the angels to do homage to the First-born to a time even in his day future, is set aside by the consideration that, according to Heb_2:9, Christ was during His earthly life humbled to a condition beneath the angels, and only the Parousia itself is the epoch at which His majesty will be unfolded in full glory.
ΤῸΝ ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟΝ ] in the N. T. only here without more precisely defining addition; comp. however, Psa_89:28 (27). That the expression must not be regarded as equivalent to ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΉς , as is done by Primasius, Oecumenius ( ΤῸ ΔῈ ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟΝ ΟὐΚ ἘΠῚ ΔΕΥΤΈΡΟΥ ΛΈΓΕΙ ἈΛΛʼ ἘΠῚ ἙΝῸς ΚΑῚ ΜΌΝΟΥ ΤΟῦ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΈΝΤΟς ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡΌς ), Clarius, and even now by Stengel, is self-evident. But neither is it identical with the ΠΡΩΤΌΤΟΚΟς ΠΆΣΗς ΚΤΊΣΕΩς , Col_1:15, in such wise that the temporal priority of Christ, as the eternal Logos, over all creatures, and the notion of His precedence over all creatures, necessarily resulting therefrom, should be contained in the word (Bleek, Grimm in the Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. K.-Z., No. 29, p. 662; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 292 f.; Kurtz, Ewald, and others). For this interpretation is excluded by the absoluteness of the expression in our passage. Rather is Christ called the First-born with respect to Christians, who are His brethren (Heb_2:11 f.), and therefore likewise υἱοί of God (Heb_2:10). Comp. also Rom_8:29.
As, for the rest, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews terms Christ the First-born Son of God; so does Philo also term the Logos the First-born Son. Comp. de Agricultura, p. 195 B (ed. Mangey, I. p. 308): τὸν ὀρθὸν αὑτοῦ λόγον , πρωτόγονον υἱύν . De Confus. Ling. p. 329 (ed. Mang. I. p. 415): τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ πρεσβύτατον υἱὸν ὃ τῶν ὄντων ἀνέτειλε πατήρ , ὅν ἐτέρωθι πρωτόγονον ὠνόμασεν , al.
ἡ οἰκουμένη ] the world, not in the widest sense (equivalent to οἱ αἰῶνες , Bleek; or to Ἡ ΟἸΚΟΥΜΈΝΗ Ἡ ΜΈΛΛΟΥΣΑ , Böhme); but, since the former member has reference to the Parousia, the habitable earth.
λέγει ] sc. ὁ θεός , not Ἡ ΓΡΑΦΉ (Grotius, Clericus, Böhme, and others). The present is chosen, because the utterance of God, which shall infallibly be made in the future, stands already noted down in the Scripture.
The citation is not derived from Psa_97:7, but from Deu_32:43. For, in the former passage, the LXX. have a reading divergent from that of our text, in the words: καὶ προσκυνήσατε αὐτῷ πάντες [ οἱ ] ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ , whereas in the Codex Vaticanus of Deu_32:43, the words occur as in our text; while the ΚΑΊ , taken up by the author into his citation, manifestly points—seeing that it is without any importance for his reasoning—to the verbatim reproduction of an O. T. utterance. Now, it is true our author follows in other cases a form of the Sept. text which bears affinity less to that contained in the Codex Vaticanus than to that in the Codex Alexandrinus, and the latter displays the variation from the Cod. Vat. Deu_32:43, in so far as ΥἹΟῚ ΘΕΟῦ is found therein in place of ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ ΘΕΟῦ . But the Song of Moses, of which Deu_32:43 forms the conclusion, is communicated anew, in many MSS. of the LXX., and so also in the Codex Alexandrinus, in a second recension, having its place after the Psalms; and in this second recension the Codex Alexandrinus, too, reads ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ ΘΕΟῦ , only the article ΟἹ has been interpolated between ΠΆΝΤΕς and ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ . It is probable, therefore, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not take the citation direct from Deu_32:43, but mediately, i.e. from that second recension of the hymn.
It remains to be said that the words of the citation are wanting in the Hebrew; they are found only in the LXX.
προσκυνεῖν ] with the dative only in the case of later classic authors, whereas the earlier combine the accusative with this verb. Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 463; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 113, 266. The N. T. has both constructions, as besides them the Hebraizing turns προσκυνεῖν ἐνώπιον , or ἜΜΠΡΟΣΘΈΝ ΤΙΝΟς , or ΤῶΝ ΠΟΔῶΝ ΤΙΝΟς . See the Lexicons.
ΑὐΤῷ ] That this pronoun of the third person was to be referred to the Messiah naturally suggested itself, inasmuch as Jehovah is the subject speaking immediately before in the Song.
[35] Comp. Reuss, L’épître aux Hébreux. Essai d’une traduction accompagnée d’un commentaire (Nouvelle Revue de Théologie, vol. v. 4e, 5e, et 6e livraison, Strasb. et Paris 1860, p. 199).
[36] In like manner Reuss, l.c. p. 201: “Il est plus naturel de songer au moment, où le monde nouvellement créé était sommé de reconnaître le Fils comme créateur. A ce moment, les anges seuls étaient les êtres formant pour ainsi dire l’Eglise du Verbe (comme Heb_12:22), et qui pouvaient recevoir l’ordre de Dieu d’adorer le Fils.”